The new revelations in the shooting death of Antonio Zambrano-Montes on Feb 10 are in direct contradiction to the autopsy report released by the Medical Examiner. The attorney for the family, Charles Herrmann announced the findings of the second autopsy on Thursday, one day after a special task force investigating the incident said Zambrano-Montes was shot five or six times, none from behind.
As was reported in Digital Journal Feb. 14, the migrant worker, who was from Mexico and residing in the U.S. for the past decade, was allegedly throwing rocks at passing vehicles when the police were called in to put a stop to the activity. When confronted, Zambrano-Montes ran, crossing the busy intersection with the three officers in pursuit.
More than 40 witnesses say the victim stopped and appeared to raise his hands when the officers stopped, took aim and began firing their weapons, shooting Zambrano-Montes dead. Sgt. Ken Lattin of the Tri-Cities Special Investigation Unit, called in to investigate the case, was very clear at Wednesday’s news conference when he said the official autopsy indicated Zambrano-Montes was not hit anywhere on the back of his body. This would indicate he was not shot while running away.
Lattin said police fired 17 shots, hitting Zambrano-Montes five or six times. “At this time we know Antonio Zambrano-Montes was not shot in the back,” he said. Herrmann said on Thursday “The report reflects a total of as many as seven rounds striking Zambrano.” He went on to say the second autopsy found entry wounds on the back of the victim’s right arm and on one buttock.
The independent autopsy was performed by Dr. Carl Wigren, a Seattle pathologist, 10 days after the shooting, on Feb. 20. The second report also shows the migrant worker was also shot in the face, stomach, chest, arm, and scrotum. The final medical examiner’s report is not finished, and could take about a month, with toxicology reports still pending.
Coroner Dan Blasdel declined comment on the second autopsy, suggesting that the pathologist who performed the autopsy for the family may have been biased, reports the Huffington Post. “The pathologist that did the second autopsy is basically a pathologist for hire. How much credibility he has is questionable,” said Blasdel. “It’s going to be very interesting to get him on the stand at the inquest.”
